Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 1309–1317 | Cite as

Preferences for Surveillance of Barrett’s Oesophagus: a Discrete Choice Experiment

  • Norma B. Bulamu
  • Gang ChenEmail author
  • Tim Bright
  • Julie Ratcliffe
  • Adrian Chung
  • Robert J. L. Fraser
  • Björn Törnqvist
  • David I. Watson
Original Article
  • 152 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Endoscopic surveillance for Barrett’s oesophagus is undertaken to detect dysplasia and early cancer, and to facilitate early intervention. Evidence supporting current practice is of low quality and often influenced by opinion. This study investigated the preferences of patients for surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus in an Australian cohort.

Methods

Four Barrett’s oesophagus surveillance characteristics/attributes were evaluated within a discrete choice experiment based on literature and expert opinion: (1) surveillance method (endoscopy vs a blood test vs a novel breath test), (2) risk of missing a cancer over a 10-year period, (3) screening interval, and (4) out-of-pocket cost. The data from the discrete choice experiment was analysed within the framework of random utility theory using a mixed logit regression model.

Results

The study sample comprised patients (n = 71) undergoing endoscopic surveillance for Barrett’s oesophagus of whom n = 65 completed the discrete choice experiment. The sample was predominantly male (77%) with average age of 65 years. All attributes except surveillance method significantly influenced respondents’ preference for Barrett’s oesophagus surveillance. Policy analyses suggested that compared to the reference case (i.e. endoscopy provided annually at no upfront cost and with a 4% risk of missing cancer), increasing test sensitivity to 0.5% risk of missing cancer would increase participation by up to 50%; surveillance every 5 years would lead to 26% reduction, while every 3 to 3.5 years would result in 7% increase in participation. Respondents were highly averse to paying A$500 for the test, resulting in 48% reduction in participation. None of the other surveillance methods was preferred to endoscopy, both resulting in 11% reduction in participation.

Conclusion

Test sensitivity, test frequency and out-of-pocket cost were the key factors influencing surveillance uptake. Patients prefer a test with the highest sensitivity, offered frequently, that incurs no upfront costs.

Keywords

Barrett’s oesophagus Surveillance Discrete choice experiment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Ms. Ann Schloithe and Mr. Jeff Bull for their support with accessing the clinical databases to identify participants and for mailing out the questionnaires.

Author Contribution

N B B: substantially contributed to the acquisition of data, the analysis of the data, the interpretation of data for the work, drafting the manuscript, approved the version that is submitted for peer-review, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

G C: substantially contributed to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition of data, the analysis of the data, the interpretation of data for the work, drafting the manuscript, approved the version that is submitted for peer-review, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

T B: substantially contributed to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition of data, the interpretation of data for the work, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the version that is submitted for peer-review, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

J R: substantially contributed to the conception and design of the study, the interpretation of data for the work, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the version that is submitted for peer-review, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

A C: substantially contributed to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition of data, the interpretation of data for the work, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the version that is submitted for peer-review, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

R J L F: substantially contributed to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition of data, the interpretation of data for the work, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the version that is submitted for peer-review, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

B T: substantially contributed to the conception and design of the study, and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the version that is submitted for peer-review, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

D I W: substantially contributed to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition of data, the interpretation of data for the work, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the version that is submitted for peer-review, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Grant Support

Professor Watson, Professor Ratcliffe and Professor Fraser received a Beat Cancer Hospital Research Package Grant which was funded by the Cancer Council of South Australia’s Beat Cancer Project on behalf of its donors and the State Government of South Australia Department of Health, together with the support of the Flinders Medical Centre Foundation, its donors and partners. This Grant funded Dr. Norma Bulamu’s and Dr. Gang Chen’s salary.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Informed consent was obtained from all study participants. Ethical approval was obtained from the Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference No. 451.15 - HREC/15/SAC/437).

Supplementary material

11605_2018_4049_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Stavrou EP, McElroy HJ, Baker DF, Smith G, Bishop JF: Adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus: incidence and survival rates in New South Wales, 1972–2005. Medical Journal of Australia 2009, 191(6):310–314.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thrift AP, Whiteman DC: The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma continues to rise: analysis of period and birth cohort effects on recent trends. Annals of Oncology 2012, 23(12):3155–3162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2017. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2017, 67(1):7–30.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K, Ang Y, Kang JY, Watson P, Trudgill N, Patel P, Kaye PV, Sanders S et al: British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 2014, 63(1):7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Whiteman DC, Appleyard M, Bahin FF, Bobryshev YV, Bourke MJ, Brown I, Chung A, Clouston A, Dickins E, Emery J et al: Australian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2015, 30(5):804–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, Gerson LB: ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett’s Esophagus. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2016, 111(1):30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mansfield C, Tangka FKL, Ekwueme DU, Smith JL, Guy GP, Li C, Hauber AB: Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990–2013. Preventing Chronic Disease 2016, 13:E27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chan DK, Zakko L, Visrodia KH, Leggett CL, Lutzke LS, Clemens MA, Allen JD, Anderson MA, Wang KK: Breath Testing for Barrett’s Esophagus Using Exhaled Volatile Organic Compound Profiling With an Electronic Nose Device. Gastroenterology 2017, 152(1):24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graham D, Lipman G, Sehgal V, Lovat LB: Monitoring the premalignant potential of Barrett’s oesophagus’. Frontline Gastroenterology 2016, 7(4):316–322.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    di Pietro M, Chan D, Fitzgerald RC, Wang KK: Screening for Barrett’s Esophagus. Gastroenterology 2015, 148(5):912–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharma P: Barrett’s Esophagus. New England Journal of Medicine 2009, 361(26):2548–2556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M: Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hall J, Viney R, Haas M, Louviere J: Using stated preference discrete choice modeling to evaluate health care programs. Journal of Business Research 2004, 57(9):1026–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wortley S, Wong G, Kieu A, Howard K: Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2014, 7(3):271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chakraborty G, Ettenson R, Gaeth G: How consumers choose health insurance. J Health Care Mark 1994, 14(1):21–33.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morgan A, Shackley P, Pickin M, Brazier J: Quantifying patient preferences for out-of-hours primary care. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2000, 5(4):214–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW: Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature. PharmacoEconomics 2014, 32(9):883–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Economics 2012, 21(2):145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kruijshaar ME, Essink-Bot ML, Donkers B, Looman CW, Siersema PD, Steyerberg EW: A labelled discrete choice experiment adds realism to the choices presented: preferences for surveillance tests for Barrett esophagus. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2009, 9:31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA: Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value in Health 2007, 10(5):415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benning TM, Dellaert BGC, Dirksen CD, Severens JL: Preferences for potential innovations in non-invasive colorectal cancer screening: A labeled discrete choice experiment for a Dutch screening campaign. Acta Oncologica 2014, 53(7):898–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW, van Dam L, Donkers B, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JDF, Steyerberg EW, van Leerdam ME, Essink-Bot ML: Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment. British Journal of Cancer 2010, 102(6):972–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pignone MP, Crutchfield TM, Brown PM, Hawley ST, Laping JL, Lewis CL, Lich KH, Richardson LC, Tangka FK, Wheeler SB: Using a discrete choice experiment to inform the design of programs to promote colon cancer screening for vulnerable populations in North Carolina. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McFadden D: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Frontiers in Econometrics. edn. Edited by P Z. New York: Academic Press; 1973: 105–142.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McFadden D, Train K: Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2000, 15(5):447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lancsar E, Louviere J: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics 2008, 26(8):661–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bampton PA, Schloithe A, Bull J, Fraser RJ, Padbury RT, Watson DI: Improving surveillance for Barrett’s oesophagus. BMJ 2006, 332(7553):1320–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    WHO: How to Conduct a Discrete Choice Experiment for Health Workforce Recruitment and Retention in Remote and Rural Areas: A User Guide with Case Studies. Geneva: World Health Organisation 2012.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brenner A, Howard K, Lewis C, Sheridan S, Crutchfield T, Hawley S, Reuland D, Kistler C, Pignone M: Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2014, 29(3):507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L: The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Economics 2000, 9(3):267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wortley S, Wong G, Kieu A, Howard K: Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2014, 7(3):271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lewis CL, Kistler CE, Amick HR, Watson LC, Bynum DL, Walter LC, Pignone MP: Older adults’ attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life: a pilot study interviewing residents of two continuing care communities. BMC Geriatrics 2006, 6(1):10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boone D, Mallett S, Zhu S, Yao GL, Bell N, Ghanouni A, von Wagner C, Taylor SA, Altman DG, Lilford R: Patients’ & healthcare professionals’ values regarding true-& false-positive diagnosis when colorectal cancer screening by CT colonography: discrete choice experiment. PLoS ONE 2013, 8(12):e80767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Martens CE, Crutchfield TM, Laping JL, Perreras L, Reuland DS, Cubillos L, Pignone MP, Wheeler SB: Why wait until our community gets cancer?: exploring CRC screening barriers and facilitators in the Spanish-speaking community in North Carolina. Journal of Cancer Education 2016, 31(4):652–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lancsar EJ, Hall JP, King M, Kenny P, Louviere JJ, Fiebig DG, Hossain I, Thien FC, Reddel HK, Jenkins CR: Using discrete choice experiments to investigate subject preferences for preventive asthma medication. Respirology 2007, 12(1):127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, College of Medicine and Public HealthFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Discipline of Surgery, College of Medicine and Public HealthFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Institute of ChoiceUniversity of South Australia Business SchoolAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.Discipline of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, College of Medicine and Public HealthFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd HospitalKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations